Guilty Verdict for Young Woman Who Urged Friend to Kill Himself

[kyuuei]

Well, we've long since established that words can be criminal. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. This ruling is merely an extension of that.

Pretending that only weapons are weapons is one of many societal failings that allows for all sorts of emotional and psychological abuse to transpire without consequence.

I'm fine with this judicial ruling.

This was pretty much my thoughts on it too. We acknowledge the power of words manipulating others with dire consequences with laws on things like blackmail, libel, shouting 'bomb' or 'fire' in airports or theaters, etc.

Doing anything except notifying the authorities or suicide emergency lines when you have someone suicidal on your hands is garbage. My own personal thoughts are that some people are just.. unavoidably suicidal... but overall, people who are unsuccessful at suicide are wanting to live, and no one should pretend they have the training necessary to help them with that.

 

[Smilephantomhive]

It wasn't murder, but it was also more than dumb stranger online telling someone to kill themselves.

Imo words alone can not hurt, it's the past experience, context, neurological differences, and probably more. Words can tip the boat in desperate moments though.

Personally I think things like this is a practicality issue, and people should be put in jail based on being a danger to society. If she wouldn't do it again then it should be less than 20 years sincexperience it wasn't murder. But idk, if there is a punishment for verbal abuse protocol, then they should base it off that.

But yeah I'm not a lawyer.

 

[Lord Lavender]

I think that is one thing that makes this confusing for folks to sift through. Many people will have a response of her behavior as being immoral / cruel; yet the question is, is what she did illegal, and to what degree, and depending on the degree, what kind of legal precedent will it set?

This is where the good old question of moral vs legal codes comes into question. It it surely morally wrong in most cases to get one to kill themselves in a deliberate way or even telling one to kill one self in the heat of the moment (To a lesser extent but still a asshole thing to do) but however how does that translate to the legal side of things since morality and legality are two different systems. For instance it can be argued that people will insult each other and one of the insults being "go kill yourself" but it isn't meant that way more of a random stone they happened to find lying on the street in this fight.

Most people would find it absurd for people to go to court for insults but it is socially and morally wrong just not legally wrong to insult others. On the other hand this is a more "heavy" and personal insult than most insults out there like hmm you wouldn't treat slapping someone and murdering someone as the same crime despite both being technically a act of violence but one is more serious than the other and telling one to kill self is more serious than calling them a butt-hole or a retard.

 

[anticlimatic]

The anti-free speech slope was already made a bit slippery by the SJW wave, and it looks like it's getting slipperier. The moral catharsis in her being found guilty of his death is nice, sure, even though carbon monoxide (that he himself put there) is the actual culprit...but if this path continues the end result is basically 1984 territory where everything you say to others will be lawyer scripted for the sake of self preservation. "What a glorious day, comrade."

 

[The Cat]

That's fine, I'm just still trying to understand what your point was and you still didn't say. I didn't want to miss something, you seem to be a thoughtful poster.

I don't know if its so much a point I'm trying to make, as much as perspective I've observed in my life. As for my persistent use of Allegory, I cant explain it in a way that would likely make much sense perhaps apart from:

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

The anti-free speech slope was already made a bit slippery by the SJW wave, and it looks like it's getting slipperier. The moral catharsis in her being found guilty of his death is nice, sure, even though carbon monoxide (that he himself put there) is the actual culprit...but if this path continues the end result is basically 1984 territory where everything you say to others will be lawyer scripted for the sake of self preservation. "What a glorious day, comrade."

I don't think her actions should be protected under free speech, but I agree that this might set a bad precedent.

"OMG just kill urself" comments on facebook, while douchey and immature, probably shouldn't fall under the same umbrella as her actions, but I think that's where we're headed.

 

[ChocolateMoose123]

She seemed to go beyond just advising him to do it and would actually belittle him, to the degree that when he tried to stop, she egged him back on again. There was a degree of interaction where she was even vocally present at the suicide (not just a static post on a FaceBook page), where he had changed his mind and she was the little devil on his shoulder demanding he go through it.

Will that set a precedent since it is such a unique and intense interaction that occurred? I dunno. It seems a bit different than the general bullying to me, where someone then offs themselves in private without coordinating with someone else. She might as well have been standing right there and participating in person, since virtually she was actively involved and in fact his death directly came from her influence since he was bailing.

I'm not really sure about what a punishment should be in terms of specifics, but there should be a punishment.

It's your first paragraph as to why she was found guilty and I wasn't suprised she was, (everyone should read the texts!!!) If you look up legal definitions, her behavior fits.

Also, this case is so "trigger" happy for so many causes the facts get left in the dust. I wonder why cases like this are that big a deal, tbh. People get convicted of murder by being accomplices of crimes, never pulling the trigger. People get charged with manslaughter by ignoring safety checks on equipment that harms someone even though the victim may have used the machine improperly.

We weigh and split risk and responsibility against each other all the time.

This over-arching theme of "do words harm; should they be criminal"? Well, they already do and they always have been a factor in the criminal justice system. Words show or can be argued for/against intent and motive. Intent and motive are major factors of how we determine criminal behavior and issue punishments.

 

[Jaguar]

She had been on Prozac for years before switching to another antidepressant, Celexa, in April 2014 -- three months before Roy's death, Breggin said.

Carter was in withdrawal from Prozac and started Celexa. Conrad Roy was also on Celexa. Both drugs carry a black box warning of suicidal thinking and behavior. (Don't tell anyone. It's 2017, the post-fact era.)

"The manufacturer of Celexa in particular doesn’t appear to be looking to improve your mental health either as they have pleaded guilty to criminal charges regarding marketing of Celexa to children. Celexa is not approved by the FDA for use by children. Many parents of teens who committed suicide or attempted suicide while on the drug, have sued Forest Labs for fraud and negligence. They contend that Forest Labs did not warn the doctors or public about the known dangers of Celexa. Instead, they paid doctors to promote the drug and aggressively marketed the antidepressant for use by children and teenagers. This cost them over three hundred million dollars to settle but this is a nominal fee for a pharmaceutical company that makes billions of dollars a year from one drug."

This case is like claiming a win against a brain strapped to a wheel chair. Good job, Assistant DA. Doo yoo fweel betta?
Now, when you grow up and become a real attorney with balls, go after big pharma. The root cause, cupcake.

 

[tinker683]

There is a difference between euthanasia for someone who has an incurable illness, or have suffered some sort of accident that is set to them in pain indefinitely and someone who is just suffering from depression. She cajoled and persuaded a young man whose life situation could have gotten better to go ahead and kill himself.

As someone who was once suicidal, who tried to kill himself and did two stints in a mental hospital because of it, what she did was not only grossly irresponsible and stupid but monstrous as well. I have no problem with her being punished.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

Seems like the root is her own mental health issues. So I don't think these calls for severe punishment are really the answer. If anything, she probably needs severe mental health treatment. We ought to be looking at this whole situation as an indication of the state of mental healthcare in this country and seeing our waving pitchforks as an indication of our ignorance on mental health.

 

[Red Memories]

Honestly, I like seeing this because I think it is about time people hold people accountable for things like this.
While I think manslaughter itself is a strong charge, I do think as some said it should be considered neglect of some sort. I think the girl needs psychological help if she thinks it is okay to tell someone to kill themselves and continue to push them to do it. it certainly is not LOVE.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

It isn't just a mental health issue. She wasn't mature enough to be expected to responsibly handle a situation like this.

 

[iwakar]

It isn't just a mental health issue. She wasn't mature enough to be expected to responsibly handle a situation like this.

This is not that. She was not a passive party in this "situation." The discussion isn't "Why didn't she know she should intervene to save him?" The discussion is "this person willfully, deliberately, repeatedly, and consistently encouraged someone she "loved" to kill themselves." One does not have to reach peak brain development to know this is "wrong." My four year old knows this is "wrong."

 

[Jaguar]

My four year old knows this is "wrong."

Which drug is your four-year-old on - Prozac or Celexa?

 

[iwakar]

Which drug is your four-year-old on - Prozac or Celexa?

Neither.

 

[Jaguar]

Neither.

No kidding. Imagine that.

 

[iwakar]

No kidding. Imagine that.

You and Grand Admiral Crunch are not making the same argument.

 

[Jaguar]

You and Grand Admiral Crunch are not making the same argument.

I have no idea what GAC is doing anywhere in the forum, nor do I care.

 

[Grand Admiral Crunch]

This is not that. She was not a passive party in this "situation." The discussion isn't "Why didn't she know she should intervene to save him?" The discussion is "this person willfully, deliberately, repeatedly, and consistently encouraged someone she "loved" to kill themselves." One does not have to reach peak brain development to know this is "wrong." My four year old knows this is "wrong."

Teenagers aren't good at abstract thinking, but they try, and they aren't fully grounded in reality either. I think their minds are disorganized and they aren't able to make sense of everything....But I see where you're coming from. Maybe I don't hold teenagers up to a high enough standard.

 

[iwakar]

The published text messages: Here are the text messsages of Michelle Carter convincing her boyfriend to commit suicide
It cuts off where he exits the truck and they speak by telephone and she tells him to get back in.